How Should Risk-Based Regulation Reflect Current Public Opinion?

Trends in Biotechnology

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 604-605

  Pollock, Christopher John ^a  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS;

EFFECTIVE APPROACHES; PUBLIC CONCERN; PUBLIC OPINIONS; REGULATORY PROCESS; RISK-BASED REGULATION;

SOCIAL ASPECTS;

AGRICULTURE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DNA MODIFICATION; LAW; LETTER; PLANT BREEDING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK MANAGEMENT; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

AGRICULTURE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INTERNATIONALITY; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84971592106     PISSN: 01677799     EISSN: 18793096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.05.002     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. 1 Malyska, A., et al. The role of public opinion in shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 34 (2016), 530–534.
2. 2 Pollock, C.J., Hails, R.S., The case for reforming the EU regulatory system for GMOs. Trends Biotechnol. 32 (2014), 63–64.
3. 3 Watrud, L.S., et al. Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (2004), 14533–14538.
4. 4 Kuzma, J., Reboot the debate on genetic engineering. Nature 531 (2016), 165–167.